RE: AssocSS issue 15

FWIW, while it's true the XML spec doesn't give details on how a 
PI is passed to the application, I note that the Infoset Rec at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.pi
says:

 A processing instruction information item has the following properties:

   1. [target] A string representing the target part of the
      processing instruction (an XML name).
   2. [content] A string representing the content of the processing
      instruction, excluding the target and any white space immediately
      following it. If there is no such content, the value of this
      property will be an empty string.

The way we're planning to define production [1a] below appears to make 
PIBody match the [content] infoitem.  This seems reasonable to me.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2009 July 29 8:13
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue 15
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Grosso, Paul writes:
> 
> > Henry, what are your latest thoughts on this given the exchange
below?
> 
> I think we can simplify this assuming we're taking my earlier
> suggestion [1] about how we position the spec. wrt the XML processor
as
> defined by the XML spec.
> 
> What I had in mind (but failed to write in [1], sorry) was that we
> use the conformance prose I suggested, and then replace the existing
> paragraphs
> 
>   The xml-stylesheet processing instruction is parsed in the same way
>   as a start-tag, with the exception that entities other than
>   predefined entities must not be referenced.
> 
>   The following grammar is given using the same notation as the
>   grammar in the XML Recommendation[XML10]. Symbols in the grammar
>   that are not defined here are defined in the XML Recommendation.
> 
> 
> with the following:
> 
>   [XML] does not specify the form in which the PIs are "passed through
>   to the application" by the XML processor.  The grammar given below
>   assumes that the entire string delimited by '<?' and '?>' is "passed
>   through": implementations are free to adapt it as necessary given
>   the form in which their XML processor does this.
> 
>   It is an *error* if a processing instruction with target
>   'xml-stylesheet' fails to satisfy an appropriately adapted version
>   of the following grammar (which is intended to reconstruct the
>   parsing of attributes in a start tag, except that entities other
>   than predefined entities must not be referenced).
> 
>   The following grammar is given using the same notation as the
>   grammar in [XML]. Symbols in the grammar that are not defined here
>   are defined in [XML].
> 
> and then we have the following two productions
> 
>   [1] StyleSheetPI ::= '<?xml-stylesheet' S PIBody '?>'
> 
>   [1a] PIBody      ::= PseudoAtt (S PseudoAtt)* S?
> 
>   plus productions [2] -- [4] unchanged.
> 
> That fact that this doesn't accept an empty PI, or one with only
> whitespace, doesn't bother me -- such PIs are indeed _not_ Stylesheet
> PIs.  The weasel words in my first paragraph above should provide
> implementors with the flexibility they need.
> 
> ht
> 
> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2009Jul/0017.html

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 14:03:13 UTC